hms iron duke

Friday, 28 February 2014

Alphen, Netherlands. 28 February. Cameron, Clegg and Miliband sat there like naughty schoolboys hauled in front of a stern headmistress. Yesterday, as German Chancellor Angela Merkel told Parliament not to expect too much from Germany Britain's leaders extended more than the proper courtesies to a friend and powerful political leader. In the servile nature of their expectations and body language they tipped over into subservience. Watching them scrape and bow before her was not what the British people expect from their leaders. Nor was it something Chancellor Merkel wanted. Yesterday, Little Britain and its little leaders were at their very worst.

In her speech Merkel called for a strong UK in a strong Europe. And there is the problem. What she witnessed is a weak Britain in a weak Europe. Or, to be more precise weak leaders who in the narrowness of their vision, their endemic short-termism and their lack of belief in both country and people render Britain far weaker than she actually is. It is hard to believe these days but the Britain that is 'led' by these political pygmies remains a top six world economy and a top four military actor and yet Chancellor Merkel could well have been addressing the leaders of Iceland (with all due respect).

The whole event oozed with the declinism and defeatism which has infected the British political class from top to bottom and which so bemuses so many Germans. "What does Cameron actually want?", they ask in Berlin? He keeps talking about repatriating powers from Brussels and negotiating a new relationship for Britain in the EU before his fabled 2017 in-out referendum. And yet he never actually spells out either his vision or his demands. It is as though Cameron is on some political yellow brick road.

Berlin need not worry. What Cameron actually wants is easy - to maintain the pretence of renegotiating Britain's EU membership just long enough to hold the Conservative Party sufficiently together until the 2015 General Elections.

Labour leader Ed Miliband and Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg? Ed would quite happily hand yet more power to an unaccountable Brussels and Nick already sees his country as 'Europe'. Indeed, Clegg said recently it was 'patriotic' to support the EU. There was a certain irony that Merkel's call for Britain to love the EU came the same day figures were announced showing a massive surge in immigration from the EU over the past year. The figures simply reinforced the sense of British leaders that can no longer even protect their own borders, let alone their people.

The sad consequence of yesterday's little bit of Gilbert and Sullivan operetta was that Merkel must have left British shores reinforced in the belief that Germany need offer London nothing. The Anglo-German relationship is becoming fast like the US-UK Special Relationship in which American leaders need but say a few nice words and British leaders fawn like star-struck groupies. It is pathetic.

Sadly, such fawning treatment would also have confirmed to Chancellor Merkel that she is indeed Queen Angela of Europe. Thankfully, Chancellor Merkel is a sensible women and knows the reality of Germany's position in Europe - ultra primus inter pares. But really...

Equally, her speech revealed Berlin's conceits about the German-benefiting EU which Britain really ought to be challenging. She said that Europe was no longer run by a few people with decisions made in secret meetings. Excuse me but the way the European Commission makes its decisions is so opaque and so lacking in transparency that a Byzantine emperor would feel at home. She also said the EU operated under the rule of law. Whose law?

In essence, Chancellor Merkel's message to Cameron, Clegg and Miliband was clear. "Look, the EU works fine for Germany and I may be prepared to offer you the odd irrelevant little morsel for you to exaggerate. However, expect no more. Take Germany's EU as I want it or go".

It is hard to imagine a time when Britain has been led by such political pygmies. The only parallel I can think of is the 1920s when Messrs Bonar Law, Baldwin and MacDonald cut a similarly unimpressive and shallow swathe on the international stage.

Queen Angela of Europe visited Little Britain yesterday. For once it was at least good to see a real leader in London.

Thursday, 27 February 2014

There
are three questions Britain must consider concerning international institutions
given their centrality to British strategy. What does Britain want institutions
to do? What will be the future strategic
and future operating environment (FOE) in which institutions will
function?What must Britain bring to the
institutions to ensure their effectiveness and London’s influence over
them?The three questions underpin two
strategic truisms; Britain’s influence over international institutions will be
directly proportionate to the political and intellectual capital Britain
invests in them, and Britain’s political capital will only be realised if
supported by hard power.

If
Britain stays in the EU, its first aim must be to keep security and defence
firmly under national control, even if limited defence integration takes place
between smaller EU member-states.However, to achieve such a goal when non-Eurozone Britain is so marginal
to EU politics will demand of the British a military force that is
unequivocally Europe’s leader and thus most powerful.Moreover, only by confirming Britain’s
position as Europe’s strongest military power will London confirm NATO as the
central institution for the security and defence of Europe, preserve American
commitment to Europe and ensure British influence in and over Europe is
commensurate with the national interest.

It
is hard to over-state the damage Britain’s 2010 defence cuts did to the
international institutions Britain holds dear.Indeed, British strategy will only leverage influence through
international institutions if institutions are not seen as mechanisms to
compensate for cuts, particularly defence cuts.Indeed, to generate such influence at this critical juncture, London
must invest institutions with real power.The need is pressing, as the three most important institutions for
Britain – EU, NATO and the UN are all in deep trouble in one way or
another.

There
are three axes of influence that British strategy must pursue.First, Britain must remind European partners
that there are others with whom Britain can act.Second, the British must remind allies and
partners that membership of either the EU or NATO is a contract in which
British support for the security of allies and partners must be matched in
return by the real support of allies and partners for Britain’s security needs
and responsibilities.Third, Britain
must actively seek to influence new partners by using its institutions as
frameworks for strategic relationships that possess a clear commitment to the
just and effective application of both coercive and non-coercive security
policy when needs be.

Central
to British strategy must be the maintenance of Britain’s status as a Permanent
Member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Indeed, even though the UN itself is
dysfunctional, it remains the world’s supreme international political
authority.The UNSC is not an executive
committee but rather a security council upon which only the world’s most
capable military powers hold permanent seats.For the foreseeable future Britain will remain one of the world’s top
five military powers and Britain’s armed forces must be consciously and purposively
maintained as such. Permanent membership
of the UNSC also places Britain at the heart of influence networks such as the
G8, G20 and G all-the-rest and is thus critical to British influence.

NATO
is in deep crisis and in need of radical overhaul.The Alliance is still configured for a past
world which has been masked by over a decade of operations in Afghanistan that
will soon come to an end. The agenda of
the September 2014 NATO Summit, due to take place in Britain, will consider the
Alliance beyond Afghanistan and little less than a NATO 3.0 will suffice to
re-establish a link between the strategic political and military mechanism that
is the purpose of the Alliance and the future operating environment.However, before any such radical overhaul of
the Alliance can take place, Britain must finally abandon the idea that NATO
means one for all and all for one.Different member nations need different things from NATO and in future will
offer different things.

Three
topics will dominate the summit – the need for military capabilities, the need
for connected forces that can think, talk and act together and co-operative
security with partners, most notably the EU, but also with partners the world
over.The one thing that will not be
discussed at the summit will be the radical re-structuring of the European
military effort to provide credible hard power influence at affordable cost,
towards which Britain should be leading Europeans.For Britain this is critical as NATO provides
invaluable structures and military standards and will remain the most likely
enabler and force generator of credible military coalitions.

Wednesday, 26 February 2014

Alphen, Netherlands. 26
February.The other day a senior
European Commission official asked me if my concerns about the growing democratic
illegitimacy of the EU were some form of psychological instability. With elections to the European Parliament due
in May at a time when liberal democracy is being steadily replaced by the EU’s liberal
bureaucracy the need for citizens to engage with today’s uber-elite is more important
than ever.However, the very process of ‘Europe’
has created a culture that places those on the right side of power on the wrong
side of democracy.

On three occasions in
the past couple of weeks I have witnessed the arrogance of power which sustains
such élites and which is so damaging democracy and respect for politicians.

My first brush with self-serving
power was to be told by the self-same Commission official that I was utterly
wrong about the EU.No, the European
Commission had not become more powerful since the 2007 Lisbon Treaty.Far from it, powers had been handed back to
the member-states.Moreover, the very
idea of an EU elite was absurd.Commission
officials were just ordinary people doing their damnedest on behalf of the
humble European citizen.On the defensive
he deployed the now time-honoured nonsense of Europe’s elite; if ever closer
political union was not driven forward one could not rule out the prospect of a
future pan-European war.

My second brush with
power came the same day courtesy of his boss.Fully paid-up member of the Euro-Aristocracy Deputy Commission President
Viviane Reding demonstrated all too clearly the gulf between power and people
in Europe.She also demonstrated the extent
to which the Commission has become a political force rather than the impartial
enabler of European law.

In a 10th February
meeting of ‘citizens’ in London she told the British it was too late for them
to be debating sovereignty.Seventy
percent of Britain’s laws, she said, were now co-decided by the European
Parliament and European Commission.For
Reding the whole debate in Britain over sovereignty was irrelevant and
pointless.That bird had flown and
resistance was futile.She then went
onto infer the British people were too ignorant to vote in an in-out referendum
because their view of the EU was “distorted”.

As Open Europe director
Pavel Sidlicki put it succinctly. “Mrs Reding epitomises the EU elites’
approach to dealing with the public – superficially embracing debate with
citizens while dismissing substantive criticism”.

However, perhaps the
most egregious example of political arrogance came not from a member of the EU’s
uber-élite but a current British minister very close to the Prime Minister – David
Cameron’s cabal. In a conversation said
minister had with a very senior friend of mine about the need for Britain to
re-discover strategy he dismissed “not particularly courteously” the very
concept.Indeed, a national vision was
“a very silly idea” and quite pointless.Events should be dealt with as they arose, he asserted.

When challenged with
the suggestion that the ability to respond to said events requires planning,
choices, investments and thus strategy he simply dismissed the whole concept.

According to my friend
he had, “…no grasp of, nor wish to grasp history and historical perspectives
and displayed a level of arrogance, ignorance, complacency and disdain which
were striking”.No wonder Britain is in
such a mess.This explains why so much national
sovereignty has been handed over to Brussels with little or no understanding of
the consequences for Britain as a self-governing state.

Cameron’s friend left
the best bit to last and remember this is an elected politician.There was no point in debating publicly such
issues because the public were too thick to understand.In other words the very people who elected
this serving minister are to his mind too stupid to be engaged on the huge
issues of the day which affect Britain, Europe and them.It is as though the people have become an inconvenience
to those in power.As my friend said
such a point of view, “…demonstrates an unsuitability to be a leader in a
democracy ( if he knows and accepts the concepts of democracy)”.

It is the assumption of
power and the intolerance of the ‘other’ that is the essential problem of many
of today’s political élites.In 1952 US
diplomat Adlai Stevenson standing up to Senator McCarthy and his awful
Un-American Activities Committee said, “The tragedy of our day is the climate
of fear in which we live, and fear breeds repression.Too often sinister threats to the bill of
rights, to freedom of the mind, are concealed under the patriotic cloak of
anti-communism”.Anti-Europeanism?

When will Europe’s
political élites realise they are the problem, not we the ‘stupid’ or mad
citizens who pay for their many privileges. European democracy is tipping into crisis and
it is about time people realise that.

Monday, 24 February 2014

Alphen, Netherlands. 24
February.It is rare to witness history
as it happens.Sweden’s outstanding,
people-open foreign minister Carl Bildt this weekend reminded all and sundry of
just that when he tweeted about the importance of the moment after a
revolution.Listening from afar to Russia’s
Chekovian silence in the wake of former President Yanukovitch’s ouster it was
hard not to cast one’s mind back to 1989.Then one by one Soviet satellites broke free from Moscow’s yoke and
declared themselves for ‘Europe’.However,
the danger of such nostalgia is that ‘freedom’ is cast in terms of Russia's humiliation.

The popular break-out
culminated in November 1989 when slab by wretched concrete slab the Berlin Wall
was torn down.The small door a few
brave people opened offered a vision of a Europe whole and free.All but the most die-hard of die-hards simply
assumed that 1989 marked the dawn of a new age of liberal democracy.2014 is both more and less complicated.

Interim President
Olexander Turchynov says he wants to set Ukraine back on the path to ‘European
integration’.In response Moscow has
withdrawn its ambassador to Kiev “for consultations”.In spite of an agreement between Germany’s
Chancellor Merkel and President Putin that Ukraine’s territorial integrity is
to be maintained with the Sochi Olympics out of the way battle-lines are being
drawn.

To reinforce Merkel’s
good cop bad cops US and UK (yawn) have warned Russia not to even think about
the use of force.All this is eerily
reminiscent of 1989.Indeed, even the
nature of Janukovich’s flight from Kiev had just a hint of the desperate
departure of Romania’s Caucescus from power…and eventually life itself.

And yet 1989 was also very
different to 2014.The US was the
dominant European power and that is clearly not the case today as Germany
assumes an ever-stronger leadership role.Today, the ideal of liberal democracy back in 1989 has been eclipsed by
the liberal bureaucracy the EU is inflicting on Europe; the harsh day-to-day reality of ever
close political union.And, far from
being the rich West versus the poor East, ‘Europe’ today is almost whole but by
and large broke.

And that is the irony
of 2014. If Brussels, or whomsoever
is in charge of ‘Europe’ these days, does not handle this moment carefully the
2014 Ukrainian Revolution could forge an implicit partnership between Western
European citizens and the Kremlin.This
is because for Turchynov ‘European integration’ is actually a metaphor for access to huge amounts of taxpayer cash belonging to
those relatively few Western Europeans who pay for this kind of thing and who
are still reeling from the impact of successive Eurozone bail-outs.

Even the still-broke
British are offering “large amounts of cash” via the IMF according to Foreign
Secretary Hague.This may be to offset
London’s ritual humiliation last week at the hands of the French, Germans and
Poles who went to Kiev to broker a deal that collapsed almost as soon as it was
signed.It may also be due to German
pressure at last week’s talks between London and Berlin to provide funds
precisely because the British taxpayer has been shielded from the Eurozone
crisis.As an aside it was interesting
to see Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski being showcased by France and
Germany as the new EU ‘Foreign Minister’ when Cathy Ashton steps down in
November.

And Ukraine will need to be
many large buckets of cash. Ukraine is
bankrupt.Or, at least it will be when
Moscow later this week withdraws the c€12bn/$16.5bn it has pumped into Ukraine’s
ailing finances of late to keep Kiev close, allied to a 30% drop in available
gas supplies if Russia cuts the pipeline.According to the CIA GDP per capita is $7500 per annum which ranks
Ukraine 140th of some 220 states in the world, with 24.1% of the population below
the poverty line.Public debt has also of
late spiralled.In other words Ukraine
could be a very big Greece. Ukraine’s economy is totally
ill-equipped for a sudden opening to Western markets, particularly in the heavy-industry
sodden and Russian-speaking east of the country.Therefore, it is vital that all of Europe’s
leaders enter this crisis with eyes wide open.

First, there can be no
solution to Ukraine’s turmoil without the support of Russia.Of a population of 45.5 million people some
17.3% are ethnic Russian concentrated in the east of the country and most
notably in Crimea, the home of the Russian Black Seas Fleet.

Second, a new
constitution must be drawn up as soon as possible that clearly and openly
protects the rights of the Russian minority in keeping with European law.

Third, the Organisation
of Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) should be given the lead to
ensure that Ukraine’s future does not become a zero sum game between a German-led
EU and Russia.

Fourth, the new
leadership in Kiev must be disabused of any romantic notions they may have that
following elections an EU-friendly Kiev could be fast-tracked into the Union.
After all, European Commission President Barosso has just told secessionist Scots
that any such deals would be “difficult, almost impossible”.

Fifth, offering Ukraine
an EU rather than a Russian future will cost billions of euros and
Europeans must recognise that.Belarus
will be next.

Sixth, Moscow must be
made to fully understand that there can be no military adventurism in
Ukraine.Ukraine’s security is
intrinsically linked to the EU and NATO members around it.

For all that Ukraine
must be supported. 2014 is not 1989.However, like it or not the key to Ukraine’s future
still lies in Moscow. At the very least Moscow must
be invited to host a conference on the new European order and told Russia is
central to Europe’s future, not simply Europe's past.Then just then Ukraine may finds its way to
peace and stability.

Friday, 21 February 2014

Alphen, Netherlands. 21 February. A
brief survey of Britain’s world reinforces the challenges the country faces and
the need for effective national strategy.Be it the threat posed by terrorism or states, the relatively benign
world-view in the 2010 National Security Strategy seems already out-dated.There is clearly a growing need to compete
effectively in the global race with states, which, in turn, suggests a new
strategic mind-set is needed, together with a re-organisation of state tools
and the commitment of appropriate resources.

Furthermore,
the fusion of terrorism, global flows of illegal funding in support of such
groups also raises the spectre of terrorists armed with mass-destructive power.
Such a threat is not immediate but
cannot be discounted and would act as an asymmetric leveller, forcing states
such as Britain to seek a balance between a credible defence against such
groups, and sufficient expeditionary military power to deter, disrupt and, if
necessary, reach out and destroy.If
that happens, then counter-proliferation, counter-terrorism, counter-insurgency
and counter-intelligence would then need to merge and Britain’s security effort
organised accordingly.

At
the inter-state level, effective non-proliferation regimes enshrined in
international organisations such as the UN, will, and must, remain central to
British strategy and yet they are fraying and could fail.At the very least, Britain must work to continue
to ensure the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and other multilateral arms
control regimes and slow the spread of nuclear weapons, but what if a state
breaks out?If that happens, which
frankly seems only a matter of time, the need for effective nuclear deterrence
could well again become pressing, however ghastly that sounds.

Facing
up to the challenges in Britain’s world will be challenging, but it is a challenge
British strategy must grip. The problem
is that Britain suffers from an overly one-dimensional view of threat –
terrorism – important though that threat is.Not only is Britain in danger of ceding the strategic space in
Afghanistan to the enemy, it has become overly focused on that enemy.As a result, Britain is failing to properly
consider the large ends of grand strategy in the round and the large means that
could need to be devoted to them in the coming years, given the growing
pressures in the international system are not just about failed states and
failed ideas.Power is back.Only if Britain’s leaders have the political
courage to scan Britain’s strategic landscape and see it for what it could be,
rather than what they hope, will the country begin to place security and defence
in its proper context.

Indeed,
the list of risks and threats discussed herein is by no means complete.There are also tensions in the Arctic High
North, concerns over the security of the Gulf States, Baltic insecurity,
conflict in the Horn of Africa, piracy, human and drug trafficking, trade insecurity,
organised crime, the frictions caused by a rapidly growing world population -
the list goes on.The challenge for
Britain and its allies and partners will be to see these challenges in the
strategic round, not as a series of iterative one-offs, which is, of course,
the political temptation.

Clearly,
the scope, extent and nature of change is challenging traditional British concepts
of security and defence and demanding creative approaches to conflict
prevention, response and consequence management.It is change that will also demand of leaders
a determination to influence events not merely to react to them, and it is this
challenge that British leaders schooled in politics rather than strategy will
face in the coming years.However, to
meet that challenge, London must think anew about British power and influence
and to what ends they are applied and how.

Partnership
will, of course, be central to British strategy.However, such method will only be achieved if
Britain has the power to be an attractive partner and sufficient societal and
governmental cohesion to act as a leader.Therefore, to compete effectively in the global race, the British must
first have a sound grasp of the scope and extent of change and a clear
understanding about where best to focus the British strategic effort.At the very least, Britain must re-develop a
sound capacity to scan the strategic horizon, rather than merely react to the
headlines of the moment.

Only
then will the British establish a proper appreciation of the extent and nature
of the power shifts taking place in the world.Only then can the fashioning of British security policy, from which
national strategy flows, be properly made with any confidence.Such a response will need to be radical,
rather than incremental.Such an
appreciation will also necessarily lead to a range of assumptions and policy
choices that will fashion Britain’s political, security, diplomatic and military
effort into the future.

Given the nature of power in today’s world, how
it is measured and quantified, both as an absolute commodity and relative
capability, statecraft will be critical.Ultimately, soft power is nought without credible hard power.Therefore, how Britain conceives, makes and
exercises strategy in the coming years will be critical.In the twenty-first century, only a
clear-headed view of Britain’s place and power in the world will enable Britain
to compete effectively in the global race and secure its interests, values and
people.

Thursday, 20 February 2014

Alphen,
Netherlands.20 February.Look at a map of Europe’s political economy
and Ukraine sits at the centre.To the north,
west and south are member-states of the European Union.To the east lies Russia.Kiev is at the very epicentre of Europe’s shifting
political plate tectonics.The violent
protests in Independence Square are thus about so much more than the future of
Ukraine.They are about past versus future,
the struggle between democracy and oligarchy, between Russia and the West,
between the US and Europe, between the EU and its member-states and between
political establishments and networked activists.

In spite of the 2004
Orange Revolution President Yanukovych’s regime still looks too often more like
that of Lukashenko’s Belarus than the liberal democracies to Ukraine’s
West.Indeed, Europe’s political divide
between the EU’s liberal bureaucracy and Putin’s Russian ‘oligocracy’ runs not
just through the centre of Ukraine but right through the centre of the regime.

Many Ukrainians in the
west of the country see a future firmly embedded in the European Union with all
that implies for free movement of Ukrainian peoples, goods and services.In the east old ties to Russia are strong
with the struggle in Kiev cast in the context of some old Cold War power movie
that has no place in the twenty-first century.For Russians and Russian speakers the place of Ukraine in their history
and identity is powerful.For the
Kremlin to ‘lose’ Ukraine would be the final retreat in a series of retreats
since 1989.Indeed, whilst President
Putin will not act during the Sochi Olympics, he will almost certainly apply economic levers and other means thereafter. He
will not give up on Ukraine lightly.

Putin’s mind is no
doubt eased by the disarray of the ‘West’. The recent Russian revelation of the
contemptuous attitude towards the EU of Victoria Nuland, the US Assistant
Secretary of State for European and Eurasian affairs, demonstrates all too
clearly the tensions in a relationship that is no longer cast in Washington. For a diplomat Ms Nuland has rarely hidden her
dislike for people or institutions (me included).However, the current spat demonstrates the
extent to which the Obama Administration believes the EU is failing to complete
the job of making “a Europe Whole and Free” in the stirring May 1989 words of
President George H. W. Bush.

Ukraine’s pain is also
revealing the tensions between the EU and its member-states over just who or
what should lead ‘Europe’s’ foreign policy.Indeed, is Ukraine even an issue of foreign policy?Under the European Neighbourhood Policy the
implication is that Ukraine is already part of the EU’s disparate family.In that light political contentions should be
seen as an internal matter as though Ukraine was already a member-state with
the EU clearly in the lead.And yet
today the foreign ministers of Germany, France and Poland are visiting Kiev
ahead of a meeting of all EU foreign ministers in Brussels.

Did Messrs Fabius,
Steinmeier and Sikorski go with the support of their 25 other colleagues?What is the role of EU foreign policy supremo
Cathy Ashton?Or, is this a power play
by Germany, France and Poland to put both the EU and the other member-states into
a subordinate role?The truth is I am
getting conflicting messages about the legitimacy of this visit and if it is simply
a power play it will only serve to pollute the search for a political solution
with the EU’s Byzantine power politics.

There is however a
potentially much deeper struggle being played out in Independence Square and
across Ukraine.It is a struggle one
also sees on the streets of Cairo, across the Middle East and critically across
much of Europe.It is the battle between
political establishments and networked activists.For some of the activists the very idea of
consensus and power-sharing and with it the almost glacial nature of political
change is unthinkable.They want direct
action and view all political establishments as anathema; be they incumbents or
loyal oppositions.Some on the streets
of Kiev clearly do want to see the replacement of oligocracy with liberal
democracy.However, there are others who
clearly reject the whole notion of representative government and prefer instead
direct action for whatever particular mantra they hang their political/anarchical
hats upon.

As Syria has so
tragically demonstrated the West in particular must be very careful not to
characterise all such activists as anti-regime and therefore good.Any political settlement that offers Ukraine
a future beyond civil strife must be constitutional; i.e. one in which the
sensible people of the sensible middle of politics work out their differences.

Therefore, for the sake
of the Ukrainian people it is vital that all the actors engaged in this
struggle understand that the solution lies with the people of Ukraine.By all means support them to find a peaceful,
democratic solution but in so doing remember the Hippocratic Oath – do no harm.

Wednesday, 19 February 2014

Alphen,
Netherlands. 19 February.One of David Cameron’s
many failings is his total lack of strategic understanding and his tendency to
see all and every big issue purely in terms of short-term domestic politicking.He is at it again.The NATO Summit in Wales on 4-5 September at
Celtic Manor Golf Club will be one of the most important such gatherings of the
past decade.In December 2014 NATO will
end major combat operations in Afghanistan.It is time to properly consider the strategic future of the
Alliance.Given that context one would
think that London in general and David Cameron in particular would be gripped
by the need to establish a summit agenda early.Not a bit of it.For Cameron the Summit
is not about NATO’s strategic future.It
is about the Scottish vote in the September 18 independence referendum and
women’s votes in the 2015 General Election.

Over the
past fortnight three very senior insider sources have told me the same thing. London has not even begun to think about
either an agenda or desired outcomes for the summit.Indeed, the only idea floated at the very
highest level of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is a summit statement on UN
Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security. Yawn!

Do not get
me wrong, UN Security Council Resolution 1325 is important but this NATO nonsense
is all too indicative of the obsessive political correctness which is destroying
Britain as a serious power.The symbolic
choice of ‘Celtic’ Manor is also simply too gauche for words.Indeed, by placing 1325 and matters Celtic front
and centre it is clear that all Cameron wants from the Summit is a photo-op
which somehow implies a big leader of a big Britain on a big international
stage.Nothing could be further from the
truth.

In my
latest book “Little Britain? Twenty-First
Century Strategy for a Middling European Power” (www.amazon.com) one of my arguments is that
too often British leaders routinely confuse politics with
strategy.The Wales Summit is a classic
example.Wales should be the NATO Reinvigoration
Summit.There are four critical outcomes the British should
be seeking in Wales.

First, the
failing 2010 NATO Strategic Concept must be reinvigorated.To that end the Alliance needs to undertake a
proper scan of the changing strategic horizon.NATO is a political-military alliance built on political realism.Its job is to respond to the world as it is
and in the worst case what the world could become, not as Alliance leaders
would like it to be. Strategy needs big thinking and political courage from big
leaders and now is the moment.

Second, a new
transatlantic security contract must be established reflective of the many
challenges the Alliance will face as the US pivots to Asia-Pacific and
Europeans are forced to take on ever more responsibility for Europe’s rough
neighbourhood.

Third, NATO’s
collective defence must be brought into the twenty-first century.Alliance missile defence, cyber-defence and
the modernisation of NATO’s conventional and nuclear deterrent must be anchored
in a reinvigorated Article 5.

Fourth, a new
Alliance force concept is needed to underpin NATO defence planning firmly
established on lessons from over a decade of operations. This would include an Operational Capability Concept and reinforce the
idea of clusters of Alliance nations modernising their deployable forces
together built on lessons-learned and a well-established programme of
exercising, training and, above all, experimentation.

NATO is
today far from achieving any of these goals.Indeed, my sources tell me that money is being actively diverted away
from the vital Connected Forces Initiative to fund the rapidly-inflating €1
billion cost of NATO’s bloated new Brussels headquarters.And, far from leading the charge towards
strategy and efficiency the British are as usual being penny wise and pound
foolish by reducing all and everything to an issue of short-term cost.

The only
other thing that will happen at the Summit will be that NATO leaders will
declare ritualistic ‘success’ in Afghanistan.They will highlight the usual nonsense about the number of girls now
attending schools compared with 2001 and the headline numbers of the Afghan
National Security Forces.They will
ignore the huge gulf between the strategic ambition of 2001 to ensure
Afghanistan is no longer a threat to its own peoples or anybody else and the
2014 reality.

Naturally,
no summit could solve all of these issues but with a modicum of British vision
and a tad of British leadership the Wales Summit could help set the Alliance
finally and firmly on the road to twenty-first century relevance.Instead, London’s strategic myopia and
endemic short-termism will ensure that the Wales Summit is backward and inward
looking.

As a NATO taxpayer
I really wonder why bother given the cost of this jamboree. At least Alliance leaders can play a round of
golf if they have nothing else worth discussing.

Monday, 17 February 2014

Alphen, Netherlands. 17
February.Rabbie Burns once wrote, “The
best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men gang aft agley”.It is hard to see but Scotland and Switzerland
are linked.Both are small countries in
which a significant part of the population is seeking self-determination in the
face of big and ever more distant power. In Switzerland’s case it is against the
distant behemoth the EU has become.In
Scotland’s case it is against the British State.What has happened over the past week has
demonstrated just how nervous big power is about government for the people, by
the people and of the people and on that issue alone I am a Scottish
nationalist.

In a carefully co-ordinated
attack Britain’s three main political parties said an independent Scotland
would be denied the pound sterling.Yesterday, the President of the European Commission said it would be “difficult,
almost impossible” for Scotland to join the EU.Now, I am no fan of the Scottish Nationalists and their efforts to destroy
my country but I am a democrat who believes that power should remain as close
to and as closely linked with the people as possible.

That is why I like
Nicola Sturgeon, Deputy Leader of the Scottish Nationalist Party. She is
bright, articulate, personable and honest and a breath of fresh air compared to
the many truth dodgers and weavers in the Westminster Village.For Sturgeon Scottish independence is not
some misty-eyed nationalist fantasy courtesy of Mel Gibson bouncing around the
Scottish Highlands in a skirt trouncing historical fact as he goes.Independence is about re-establishing the
lost link between people and power destroyed by a Westminster Village indifferent
to the needs of the people and a Brussels elite obsessed with the creation of a
distant new country called ‘ Europe’ nobody wants.Indeed, her emphasis on political principle distinguishes
Sturgeon from her Little Scotlander
boss Alex Salmond.

So, why does Scottish
independence scare big power?There are
two essential reasons both of which reflect the growing power of distant
executives over parliaments and peoples.First, Scottish
independence would not just wipe out a 300 year old country and a 400 year old
union.Separatism would also gravely
undermine London’s authority over England, Wales and Northern Ireland and raise
fundamental questions about the governance of the British peoples.Second, Scottish independence would reinforce
the wave of democratic nationalisms sweeping across Europe as a consequence of
elite incompetence and the deepening democratic abyss.

Sturgeon’s demand that
a democratic relationship between power and people be re-established is made
more acute by the disrepute into which both the Westminster Village and
Brussels has fallen. Only last week Westminster quietly dropped a provision to
permit local constituencies to recall an MP if their behaviour was no longer
deemed appropriate.This was a clear
commitment made in the wake of the MP expenses scandal.

In presenting the
British people with a fait accompli
Deputy European Commission President Vivien Reding said in London last week that
70% of all Britain’s laws are now made in Brussels.She also said the unloved and unvoted for
European Parliament is now the strongest legislature in Europe.No-one told the British people that a consequence
of EU membership would be the utter emasculation of the Mother of Parliaments.

Now, in a sense the
Scottish Nationalists make it easy for big power by presenting an absurdly rosy
picture of Scottish independence and nor should they be surprised the British
State they are seeking to destroy is fighting back.Take the proposed currency union.It is totally unfair of the nationalists to
expect the British taxpayer to underpin and guarantee the debts of an
independent Scotland. At the very least
the British people should have a say over Scotland’s continued use of the pound
sterling and the fiscal and other liabilities they could incur in the name of
an independent Scotland.

However, it is not Scotland’s
future liabilities what worries London.Indeed, the Scots represent only 8.9% of the British economy and 8.3% of
the population and currency union would actually ensure de facto British control over an ‘independent’ Scotland.Of greater concern to Westminster is that Scotland’s
departure from the UK would increase calls for an English Parliament to
represent England’s 58 million or so people in the same way the Welsh Assembly
represents the 2 million in Wales, and Stormont the 1 million in Northern
Ireland.

Therefore, rather than
do tawdry big power deals with the European Commission London must offer a new
political vision; a Federal Britain. A
Federal Britain in which London would retain control over federal taxation and
the currency, as well as foreign and defence policy.A new English Parliament would be
established, naturally in York the ancient capital of Roman England and my own
native Yorkshire.Crucially, the Bank of
England would be renamed the Federal Bank of the United Kingdom.A Britain that looked more like America,
Australia or Canada would actually furnish Westminster with far more political
legitimacy to seek the repatriation of powers from Brussels that is the next
big political struggle.

The simple fact of political
life is that whatever happens in the Scottish referendum on 18 September Scotland
will remain a relatively small rock stuck on the end of a hugely bigger England
at the windswept margins of a broken Europe.The facts of power, people and geography will produce in effect the same
result - independence-lite or devolution max.

As an Englishman proud
of the Scottish blood coursing in his veins the departure of Scotland from the
United Kingdom would be one of the saddest days of my life.However, as a democrat I would support the
will of the Scottish people.Scots deserve
to be offered a far better vision by big power than Borg-like ‘resistance is
futile’.Like the rest of us they need a
new vision of a twenty-first century United Kingdom in a re-democratised
European Union - a new vision for a new country in a new century in a new Europe.

Nicola Sturgeon has at
least put that agenda on the table and for that alone I am grateful to her.

Friday, 14 February 2014

Britain
could still be a powerful player on the world stage if it so chose.According to the CIA World Factbook 2013
Britain has an economy worth $2.48 trillion serving a population of
63,181,775.France has an economy worth
$2.60 trillion serving a population of 65,350,000.Germany, on the other hand, has an economy
worth $3.4 trillion serving a population of 80, 399,300.As a comparison, the United States has an
economy worth $15.68 trillion serving a population of 316,391,000, whilst China
has an economy worth $8.23 trillion serving a population of 1,353,921,000. In terms of purchasing power parity, Britain
is the ninth richest country in the world and Europe’s second richest after
Germany. Moreover, according to the web-site Global Firepower, Britain ranked fifth
in global defence spending in 2012, with the US having spent $689.59 billion,
China $129.27 billion, Russia $64 billion, France $58.24 billion and Britain
$57.87 billion.

In
other words, Britain cannot hide from power and the responsibilities it
imposes.Therefore, Britain has every
right to aspire to have influence over other states, if the security of the
British state and its citizens is to be assured in a complex environment in
which state power will remain the main driver of change and competition in the
world.As Britain is an architect of the
contemporary state-centric international system, the meaningful, robust and
durable stability of that system should be the necessary goal of British
influence.Equally, the institutions of
systemic governance, most notably the UN, but also relevant regional institutions,
must also be reformed if they are to be effective instruments for managing
stability and stable change rather than expensive talk shops.Strange though it may seem given the
financial crisis, it is precisely this moment when Britain must seek to assert
maximum influence over change.For
Britain to assert such an influence role, demands of Britain the policy,
strategy and organisation worthy of such an ambition and the political will to
seize the moment.

Harvard
University’s Professor Joseph Nye described national or grand strategy as the
organisation of large means in pursuit of large ends.Clearly, Britain still possesses a
significant amount of that most important of strategic commodities -
influence.However, influence is as
nothing if the ends of British strategy become estranged from ways and
means.That makes any call for an
ambitious British strategy seem, on the face of it, perverse.One can only imagine the tut-tutting and
head-scratching response of tired, senior practitioners in a London worn down
by political uncertainty, financial constraints and diplomatic and military
over-stretch, not-to-mention the eternal bureaucratic infighting that, in the
absence of firm political leadership, is Whitehall today.A London today that does not know where
Washington ends and Brussels begins.However, it is precisely the danger of this moment and what it portends
that makes such a call for a decidedly British strategy not only necessary but
also timely.

Part
of London’s problem is that it sees avoidance of conflict as a strategy in and
of itself, particularly if it means conflict with allies and partners.However, as Sir Lawrence Freedman states,
“…strategy comes into play where there is actual or potential conflict, when
interests collide and forms of resolution are required. This is why strategy is more than a plan.A plan supposes a sequence of events that
allows one to move with confidence from one state of affairs to another. Strategy is required when others might
frustrate one’s plans because they have different and possibly opposing
interests and concerns”.

Looked
at from across the ages, the need for strategy is even more pressing.In 1562, John Hawkins sailed to the Americas
at the dawn of a new strategic age for England.Britain may well now have come to the end of that unparalleled strategic
adventure which started with Hawkins’ 1598 battle with the Spanish at San Juan
de Ulloa.If that is indeed the case, the consequences
will be profound and not just for the British.There is a strange but compelling symmetry to British history.The true age of Empire began with the 1607
arrival of English and Dutch settlers in what eventually became the United
States.Britain’s two hundred year domination
of the seas can be dated to the 1713 signing of the Treaty of Utrecht that saw
Gibraltar ceded permanently to Britain.In 1815, Britain’s supremacy was confirmed by
Wellington’s final victory over Napoleon at Waterloo.In 1914, the First World War broke out and,
in spite of British victory in 1918, the long slide of decline was set
inexorably in place.Will 2014 and a
possible Scottish secession from the Union mark the true end of Britain as a
strategic power? The jury is out.

Thursday, 13 February 2014

Alphen,
Netherlands. 13 February. When asked at the Franco-American summit this week if
France had replaced Britain as America’s special friend President Obama replied
that it was like asking him to choose between his two beautiful daughters.President Hollande replied that France and
America had helped each other win freedom and that France was America’s oldest
ally – against Britain.In so doing President
Hollande ignored the many tens of thousands of British soldiers lying dead
in Commonwealth war cemeteries across France who also died for France’s
freedom. President Obama ignored the
many thousands of British soldiers killed and maimed supporting American policy
this past decade.Clearly, Britain’s
relationship with the US is being downgraded by this administration whilst
France’s relationship is being upgraded.Why?

1.Washington has a very short memory.All that matters to the Americans is what you
are doing for them today not yesterday.Yesterday
in Geneva a senior NATO official asked me why it seemed France was able to do
far more with its armed forces today than Britain.Simple.The French were not in Iraq and refused to commit fully to
Afghanistan.There are still 8000
British troops supporting the US in Afghanistan.Moreover, the British armed forces have been
seriously denuded over the past decade giving full support to the US in Iraq, Afghanistan
and elsewhere.

2.Paris has successfully manipulated the
British Parliament’s wise rejection of last summer’s deeply flawed American
'neither one thing or another' limited strike against Syria for which France
offered full support.The US is also supporting
French operations in Mali for which Britain has only offered some modest logistical
support and a training mission.

3.The Obama administration does not like
Britain very much.Some of the serious
heavy-hitters in the Administration from the President down really believe that
the future special relationship is with an EU led by Germany and France.Britain – Euro-sceptic in Chief – is seen as
a troublemaker for not bowing to the ‘inevitability’ of further European
integration.Indeed, the Americans are
quietly trying to force British compliance.

4.Washington today simply fails or refuses
to see the fundamental issues of political and democratic principle that Britain
is fighting for.They are blinded by the
belief that a ‘USE’ would be a kind of putative USA, rather than the inward-looking,
neo-pacifist bureaucratic, dogmatic and intransigent institution which no
American would ever begin to consider legitimate.The coming treatment of Switzerland will be
proof of that.

5.France, whilst utterly frustrated with
current EU defence still believes the future is European.The EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy
is utterly stymied and unlikely to lead soon to either a reformed or improved
European defence effort.Therefore, for
the time-being a France also worried by the growing influence of Germany over
the European project is signalling a move towards the US and NATO.

6.London completely miscalculated and
under-estimated the impact on Washington of the military-slashing 2010
Strategic Defence and Security Review.To
the Americans it signalled a determined British retreat from influence which an
Anglophobic administration was all too happy to seize upon.

7.The whole concept of a ‘special
relationship’ was and is over-blown.There was a moment during World War Two when the Anglo-American
relationship was special.However, after
the war the Americans were ruthless in their treatment of Britain, particularly
over the repayment of war debt.Over
time the ‘special relationship’ simply became a fig-leaf the Americans offered
British leaders to mask Britain’s rapid decline.There were moments when the politics of London
and Washington aligned, such as Reagan-Thatcher in the 1980s.However, the ‘special relationship’ is today
little more than a metaphor for Britain’s poodleism.

So, a rapport spécial?Non!First, France still believes that the future of Europe’s defence should in
time be European and focussed on the EU.Second, France refuses to see NATO as anything other than an alliance of
last resort that should only be used for collective defence.Third, when a Republican administration eventually
returns it could well be that the politics of London and Washington become
re-aligned.Fourth, with a confirmed
defence investment budget of £160bn/$261bn the British will re-invest far more
in defence than a France trapped in the Eurozone. Moreover, excluding France
the British defence investment plan is bigger than the rest of NATO Europe
combined.

The real lessons for London, Paris and the rest of
Europe are this; abandon romantic notions of a special relationship/rapport spécial
with the Americans.Yes, European allies
will still have value to the Americans as a pool of democratic legitimacy for
American action.However, the real test
of any relationship with and for the Americans will be the extent to which an
ally offers an increasingly Asia-Pacific focused and over-stretched America
hard support.And, if London plays its
current cards right and stops retreating both in political mind and fact within a decade the only real military show
in Europe will be a British show.

About Me

Julian Lindley-French is Senior Fellow of the Institute of Statecraft, Director of Europa Analytica & Distinguished Visiting Research Fellow, National Defense University, Washington DC. An internationally-recognised strategic analyst, advisor and author he was formerly Eisenhower Professor of Defence Strategy at the Netherlands Defence Academy,and Special Professor of Strategic Studies at the University of Leiden. He is a Fellow of Respublica in London, and a member of the Strategic Advisory Group of the Atlantic Council of the United States in Washington.
Latest books: The Oxford Handbook on War 2014 (Paperback) (2014; 709 pages). (Oxford: Oxford University Press) & "Little Britain? Twenty-First Strategy for a Middling European Power". (www.amazon.com)
The Friendly-Clinch Health Warning: The views contained herein are entirely my own and do not necessarily reflect those of any institution.